If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Late-Term Abortions

From Townhall:

Remarkably, earlier this year, “a group of medical ethicists linked to Oxford University” published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics arguing that, “Parents should be allowed to have their newborn babies killed because they are ‘morally irrelevant’ and ending their lives is no different to abortion.” (This is not a fabricated story.)According to the article, “newborn babies are not ‘actual persons’ and do not have a ‘moral right to life’. The academics also argue that parents should be able to have their baby killed if it turns out to be disabled when it is born.”This would include a baby born with Downs Syndrome whose condition had not been diagnosed by prenatal testing? By all means, Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva, the authors of the article argue, the parents should have the right to kill the baby.

This article was in response to the testimony of a Planned Parenthood official last week:

Rep. Jim Boyd was so taken aback by the testimony of Alisa LaPolt Snow, the Planned Parenthood lobbyist, that he said to her, “So, um, it is just really hard for me to even ask you this question because I’m almost in disbelief. If a baby is born on a table as a result of a botched abortion, what would Planned Parenthood want to have happen to that child that is struggling for life?”She replied, “We believe that any decision that’s made should be left up to the woman, her family, and the physician.”What? The baby survives an abortion in a Planned Parenthood clinic and is fighting for its life, and Planned Parenthood isn’t willing to say, “Yes, we want to see the baby’s life saved”? Of course not. If it was up to the mother and doctor to terminate the baby’s life inside the womb, why not continue the barbaric act outside the womb?Rep. Jose Oliva, also incredulous, asked Snow, “You stated that a baby born alive on a table as a result of a botched abortion that that decision should be left to the doctor and the family. Is that what you’re saying?”Snow replied, “That decision should be between the patient and the health care provider,” to which Oliva rightly countered, “I think that at that point the patient would be the child struggling on the table, wouldn’t you agree?”Snow was obviously caught off guard and could only reply, “That’s a very good question. I really don’t know how to answer that. I would be glad to have some more conversations with you about this.”

Does this mean that because an infant is not yet "cognizant", they are not yet human? In which case, why are parents prosecuted for child neglect, child abuse, or endangering a minor when they abuse or kill their infants outside of a hospital-like setting? We even prosecute people for abuse of animals.

You may also have already read about this:

And what would Planned Parenthood say about the actions of Philadelphia abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell? He was charged “with murdering seven babies born alive and with the death of 41-year-old Karnamaya Mongar, who died during an abortion in November of 2009.”

Specifically, these were “seven recently born babies whose necks were stabbed with scissors and whose spinal cords were slit” by Gosnell. But if we follow the rationale of Planned Parenthood, what did he do that was so terrible? After all, the mother wanted to terminate her baby’s life and the doctor simply made sure it happened, inside or outside the womb. Why should he face criminal charges? (We’re not discussing Gosnell’s alleged involvement in the death of Karamaya Mongar.)

Who will decide which lives are "useless"?

G.Clinchy@gmail.com"Know in your heart that all things are possible. We couldn't conceive of a miracle if none ever happened." -Libby Fudim

​I don't use the PM feature, so just email me direct at the address shown above.

It just seems that the people that want to end abortions don't offer any alternatives or bother to adopt. They don't support Planned Parenthood or other women clinics, etc. They don't care about the fiscal responsibility of having to put these babies on government assistance FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES. They don't care about the strong correlation between the reduction in crime and the passage of Roe V. Wade (Freakonomics). The American Indians put obvious, to them, problem children out in the wilderness to be dealt with by nature. Shouldn't a woman along with her partner be able to decide what SHE does with her body and not the government or another group?

So we spend billions of dollars each year on entitlements for able-bodied Americans but we should take the fiscal responsibility into account when deciding on abortion! Better yet as you so eloquently stated that the American Indians put, "problem children out in the wilderness to be dealt with by nature." Any young child would almost certainly die left to the elements at a young age. Are you really that much of a "tool" or are you just trying to get under people's skin?

So.....we have a problem.......the solution??.......act as though we are God and take an innocent life.

Perfect logic to you?

A woman can do what ever she wants with her body (including saying "NO!" ) we are talking about someone elses body, the baby.
And what if the baby is a woman?
Where is her choice?

Very sad............................................... ..................

It is sad, but you omitted posting a solution. Short of sterilization there isn't one.

Sometimes I think that conservatives pro-life just because liberals have the market on being pro-choice. I also think that this is a contradiction. Conservatives want government out of their lives but are inviting government into it with abortion while the liberals want a utopian commune where all decisions are made for them by the government including whether they get to have a baby or not.

So we spend billions of dollars each year on entitlements for able-bodied Americans but we should take the fiscal responsibility into account when deciding on abortion! In some cases, yes, women do it all the time. They simply can't afford to have the baby. Better yet as you so eloquently stated that the American Indians put, "problem children out in the wilderness to be dealt with by nature." Any young child would almost certainly die left to the elements at a young age. That's the entire point. They didn't want to ruin the gene pool. Are you really that much of a "tool" or are you just trying to get under people's skin?

Never mind the fact that the woman either shouldn't have sex or protection should have been used, what are we going to do? Put all the kids in orphanages? Great solution!! Talk about being unloved. What about the cases of rape resulting in pregnancy? You can't tell me that you would FORCE the woman to have the baby? Talk about inhumane.